Muslim Woman Jailed For Refusing to Remove Head Scarf in Court (and then cussing at the court)

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox
So you are ok with gang members show up with their bandanna and everything at the courtroom?

What are the chances that anyone would have heard about this if he'd let it slide? What are the chances that someone would complain that her headgear was violating any rights?

And if the court can full discretion for holding someone in contempt, couldn't they have done the same with clothing? Why does there need to be a rule that applies to all clothes? Why not just leave individual cases up to judge?

So what you are saying is the court has full discretion, but as soon as you don't like it, they don't have full discretion?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: darkxshade
I wanted to say fair but 10 days in jail for wearing something for good reason that conflicts with policy is a bit much imo.

Easily solved- don't cuss at the bailiff.

Yeah really, and for someone some hung up on religious beliefs, what does her religion say about cussing and being disrespectful? I wonder how an outburst like that in a Saudi or other Muslim society would be handled?

How is that relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[SAWYER]

Well no need to be wishy-washy with beliefs, and if she is wishy-washy with them surley she could remove her religious article enough for court.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox
So you are ok with gang members show up with their bandanna and everything at the courtroom?

What are the chances that anyone would have heard about this if he'd let it slide? What are the chances that someone would complain that her headgear was violating any rights?

And if the court can full discretion for holding someone in contempt, couldn't they have done the same with clothing? Why does there need to be a rule that applies to all clothes? Why not just leave individual cases up to judge?

So what you are saying is the court has full discretion, but as soon as you don't like it, they don't have full discretion?

No, I'm saying that a little common sense in that discretion would have saved a lot of headache.

It's like people are looking for things to get their panties in wad about.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Well so far only one person defending this woman has answered my question and proved to be consistent. Would you support all religions hats/head wear in courts, not just for Islam?

Pretty sure I answered this as well.

No head gear ban <> banning religious head gear.

ALL head gear are banned. Thus not discrimination based on religion.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
yes its owned by the public meaning me and you and everyone else.

Per your line of thought, so are the prison systems...but you don't make up your own rules there, either.

no they aren't for the most part they are privatized its a billion dollar industry. Prisoners don't have rights. The lost their rights when they did something to be removed from society. Anyways this isn't about jail vs. the real world as we'd have more luck comparing our govt. to china.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

I'll just jump in here and point out that there is a precedence in society that dictates headgear should not be worn in certain instances. Along those lines, our court system essentially runs off of precedence - case law - and as such this is not a "ludicrous" rule. Furthermore to associate a court rule with law is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Well no need to be wishy-washy with beliefs

Who are you to tell that woman how to practice her beliefs? She can be as much of a hypocrite as she wants.

Again, how is this relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm surprised that Amused, who claims to be a libertarian, is siding with the court. I didn't think pointless rules fit with libertarianism.

LOL!!!

Wow, libertarianism is not anarchy. It believes in a structured government.

A court cannot work without order. It does so by attempting to remove ANYthing it finds disruptive to the process. Obviously, if one thinks about it hard enough, many types of hats can be and ARE disruptive. Hats with brims that hide eyes, hats with gang affiliation, hats that block views from people behind them, etc. So rather than be forced to split hairs on every hat in the room, the court just banned all hats in an effort to stop the disruptions.

The rule applies equally to all.

As a libertarian, I have no problem with it at all.

so one can rise to level of judge without being able to discern, a bandanna, doorage, ball cap from a religious headgear? Pretty high standards we have to become judge :roll: I'm sure a middle school can discern whats appropriate and whats not.

So now the court is to waste time and money having hearings over hats??? In our society you don't think every-other hat ruling would be contested??? Come on.

Specific measurments must be done, exceptions made etc. Don't you see that it was just easier to ban hats altogether?

And a gang can choose ANYTHING it wants to be code for itself. Another reason why many courts have just banned hats altogether.

The main purpose of these rules are to maintain order and limit time wasted. Not to appease people's fashion sense.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
everyones forgotten that america was formed so they could practice their religion without the interferences of government.

Yeah, in your house, or walking down the street. You enter a courtroom with rules and regulations, you stfu and abide. Too bad your stupid traditions aren't allowed there, deal with it.

not sure if someone already posted this?

what happened to seperation fo church and state? isnt a courthouse a state building?

i also find it kind of sad...that whenever some petty little thing like this happens. anything and anyone that has some problem that is in the least bit involved with religion, automatically turns it into a holy crusade or makes a big deal out of it.

If this rule is for everyone.. then why whats the problem..people in religion think there special.

if anyone religious kept to there homes and themselves. this world just might actually be a better place

You are in favor of any rule and/or law as long as it applies to everyone? good for you.

 

[SAWYER]

Do you support all relious headwear allowed in courts?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.

The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.

Laws are different.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

 

[FuryofFive]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
everyones forgotten that america was formed so they could practice their religion without the interferences of government.

Yeah, in your house, or walking down the street. You enter a courtroom with rules and regulations, you stfu and abide. Too bad your stupid traditions aren't allowed there, deal with it.

not sure if someone already posted this?

what happened to seperation fo church and state? isnt a courthouse a state building?

i also find it kind of sad...that whenever some petty little thing like this happens. anything and anyone that has some problem that is in the least bit involved with religion, automatically turns it into a holy crusade or makes a big deal out of it.

If this rule is for everyone.. then why whats the problem..people in religion think there special.

if anyone religious kept to there homes and themselves. this world just might actually be a better place

You are in favor of any rule and/or law as long as it applies to everyone? good for you.

dont be a jerk, there making mountains out of mole-hills

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: sdifox
So you are ok with gang members show up with their bandanna and everything at the courtroom?

What are the chances that anyone would have heard about this if he'd let it slide? What are the chances that someone would complain that her headgear was violating any rights?

And if the court can full discretion for holding someone in contempt, couldn't they have done the same with clothing? Why does there need to be a rule that applies to all clothes? Why not just leave individual cases up to judge?

So what you are saying is the court has full discretion, but as soon as you don't like it, they don't have full discretion?

No, I'm saying that a little common sense in that discretion would have saved a lot of headache.

It's like people are looking for things to get their panties in wad about.

It is entirely possible the bailiff is power tripping. Best way to avoid being bitten by a dog leashed to a post is to not walk up to the dog, kick it and stay there.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
everyones forgotten that america was formed so they could practice their religion without the interferences of government.

Yeah, in your house, or walking down the street. You enter a courtroom with rules and regulations, you stfu and abide. Too bad your stupid traditions aren't allowed there, deal with it.

not sure if someone already posted this?

what happened to seperation fo church and state? isnt a courthouse a state building?

Good point, remember the big uproar over the 10 Commandments being displayed in a court?

the state wouldn't be supporting a speicfic religion by allowing religious head gear. It would be supporting freedom of religion.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
yes its owned by the public meaning me and you and everyone else.

Per your line of thought, so are the prison systems...but you don't make up your own rules there, either.

no they aren't for the most part they are privatized its a billion dollar industry. Prisoners don't have rights. The lost their rights when they did something to be removed from society. Anyways this isn't about jail vs. the real world as we'd have more luck comparing our govt. to china.

Basically, you're saying that we pay for the prison system and jails, but have no control because they're controlled by someone else? Ok - we pay for the courtroom, which is ran by the judge.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.

The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.

Laws are different.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

wtf apparently I am not speaking English.

Your question is flawed, thus my answer split your question in 2.





my ealier reply to your quetion


This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law. And there are plenty of stupid laws still in effect that should be scrapped, but while they are still there, they are still the law. They just might not get enforced much.

 

[SagaLore]

You guys really need to get outside your bubble.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
everyones forgotten that america was formed so they could practice their religion without the interferences of government.

Yeah, in your house, or walking down the street. You enter a courtroom with rules and regulations, you stfu and abide. Too bad your stupid traditions aren't allowed there, deal with it.

not sure if someone already posted this?

what happened to seperation fo church and state? isnt a courthouse a state building?

Good point, remember the big uproar over the 10 Commandments being displayed in a court?

the state wouldn't be supporting a speicfic religion by allowing religious head gear. It would be supporting freedom of religion.

Freedom does not mean special treatment. If the court has a rule that says no hats, and she gets to wear a hat, that is INEQUALITY, not equality. She has MORE freedom than others.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm surprised that Amused, who claims to be a libertarian, is siding with the court. I didn't think pointless rules fit with libertarianism.

LOL!!!

Wow, libertarianism is not anarchy. It believes in a structured government.

A court cannot work without order. It does so by attempting to remove ANYthing it finds disruptive to the process. Obviously, if one thinks about it hard enough, many types of hats can be and ARE disruptive. Hats with brims that hide eyes, hats with gang affiliation, hats that block views from people behind them, etc. So rather than be forced to split hairs on every hat in the room, the court just banned all hats in an effort to stop the disruptions.

The rule applies equally to all.

As a libertarian, I have no problem with it at all.

so one can rise to level of judge without being able to discern, a bandanna, doorage, ball cap from a religious headgear? Pretty high standards we have to become judge :roll: I'm sure a middle school can discern whats appropriate and whats not.

So now the court is to waste time and money having hearings over hats??? In our society you don't think every-other hat ruling would be contested??? Come on.

Specific measurments must be done, exceptions made etc. Don't you see that it was just easier to ban hats altogether?

And a gang can choose ANYTHING it wants to be code for itself. Another reason why many courts have just banned hats altogether.

The main purpose of these rules are to maintain order and limit time wasted. Not to appease people's fashion sense.

What are you talking about thier is no debate required. A fucking burkha is not a fucking hat. you'd have to be damn near retarded to need to debate that in a court hearing.

 

[dbk]

What got into the bailiff? He could've just asked her to leave.... arrested her for cursing?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Do you support all relious headwear allowed in courts?

The fact that people are ignoring your stupid question should be a clue to you.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: dbk
What got into the bailiff? He could've just asked her to leave.... arrested her for cursing?

she was asked to leave, then she cussed and that set the bailiff off.

 

[Baked]

Keep your religion in your own home and church/temple/cult hideout. This woman is just causing more hate towards the Muslim religion. Mission accomplished. gg

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Do you support all relious headwear allowed in courts?

The fact that people are ignoring your stupid question should be a clue to you.

What is stupid about it? Either they do and are not hypocrites or they only think Islam should get the special treatment.